shakenvac
4mo ago
His point with "the media rarely lies" wasn't that the media isn't deceptive. He was using an extremely narrow definition of lie - to deliberately tell a known falsehood as true. I do agree with him that the media rarely does that.
shakenvac
5mo ago
Shit Life Syndrome is real. People live poverty stricken, directionless, crime-ridden lives fueled by crap food, alcohol and drugs, with little positive social interaction. This causes psychic pain, which turn becomes mental health problems and psychosomatic pain. People with shit lives are probably very commonly found living in poorly built buildings infested with mold and fungus.
I'm half convinced that the vast majority of pain that doesn't have an apparent cause is psychosomatic.
You are correct, but I don't blame @sohois one bit for getting that wrong (great post btw)
Polish PM Donald Tusk said that GDP per capita was $35k in Poland and $45k in the UK. He estimated that at current trends the polish figure would overtake the British by 2029.
The British press, being full of credulous fools that wouldn't know journalism if it kicked them in the face, didn't bother to do even rudimentary fact checking, and simply reported the figures as Tusk had given. That factoid was absolutely everywhere. It seems obvious that Tusk was referring to PPP figures, though he never said so, and in fact probably doesn't even know what PPP means. In absolute figures the UK GDP per capita is about $45k but the Polish figure is $18k. No way Poland catches up this decade. Probably not in my lifetime.
shakenvac
6mo ago
once you've started shooting; why did you stop?
Right boys, it's death-or-glory time, and we're all out of glory.
This feels to me like another example of how America does not really seem to have a coherent philosophy when it comes to gun posession and use of force. Like, you are allowed to have a weapon, you are allowed to use it to defend your home, you are allowed to shoot intruders... But the police are also allowed to issue no-knock warrents for a wide variety of crimes, allowed to explode into your home in the middle of the night, and if they see you with a gun/knife/bat/dog chew they are definitely allowed to put 27 rounds into you. If they get the house wrong it's NBD. But yeah bro, you're definitely allowed to use guns to defend yourself.
Similarly here. Foster was allowed to open carry a rifle. He was allowed to walk up to a car on the street. He was allowed to have a hand on his rifle. ... He's allowed to have two hands on his rifle? well maybe, but low ready is out, apparently. Though, the jury thought it was in, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. He's not allowed to point it at anyone, sure. but there's point at, and point at, isn't there. is he allowed to muzzle sweep you? what if it's just your legs? Foster was clearly in a position to 'quick draw' on Perry... is that enough to justify shooting first?
I don't know. Seems like a pretty thin knife edge to balance the lives of two men on.
Is this problem even solvable? It seems to me that it probably isn't. If you give your citizens free access to devices which can kill in a split second it's understandable that the police don't particularly feel like politely knocking at the door of the crack house and giving some PCP-addled junkie the opportunity to fill them full of buckshot. Perhaps, like school shootings, this is simply a price that Americans are willing to pay to ensure they have access to firearms.
shakenvac
6mo ago
I am trying to understand your position, so please let me know if I have got this right:
• Israel is inherently bad/unjust, by the nature of it's creation.
• Because of this, there is nothing that Israel can do that would be good/just, excepting perhaps to dissolve itself.
•Similarly, there is nothing that Palestinians could possibly do to Israel that would be bad/unjust, and no Israeli response to any Palestinian action (excepting perhaps to just take a bloody nose) could be good/just
•You do not implore Israel to stop. I think this is not because you think Israel is justified in any moral sense, (i.e. blood feud) but because you acknowledge that asking Israel to behave justly under your model would be asking the impossible. You simply ask that uninvolved actors act according to the 'Israel is inherently bad' idea
Is this fair? If so, what separates Israel from all previous historical colonisations, or even conquests? Why don't the Turks have to give Istanbul back to the Greeks? Would Aborigines in Australia/Canada/America be justified in waging war against their colonisers? Would their colonisers be justified in defending themselves?
If not, what actions could Israel take, short of dissolving itself or losing its identity as a Jewish state, that would allow it to achieve the status of a state which is allowed to defend itself, in your eyes?
I don't accept "defensive"
A defensive war means you were attacked. It does not mean ‘you were attacked for no good reason’. I’m sure there were plenty of Nazi propagandists who could have developed an excellent reason for their invasion of France: “The Versailles treaty was such an evil, it might as well have been an act of war!”
I perceive an asymmetry between initiating unjustified violence and retaliating to it.
I think you need to flesh out your idea of what exactly constitutes ‘initiating’ and ‘unjustified violence’. I am willing to grant that the initial Zionist colonization of Israel was an injustice to the Palestinians living there, though not a particularly unique injustice historically speaking. I do not see how this gives Palestinians moral carte blanche to assault Israel from now until the end of eternity. At some point they need to accept the facts on the ground. I do not think the Germans would be justified in nuking London in 2024 because in their moral calculus the WW2 bombing of Germany was immoral. I do not think the Turks need to give Istanbul back to the Greeks.
History is a continuum. Nobody ever really ‘started it’
the Israeli retaliation for any Palestinian action is wildly out of proportion
I see this as a category error. America killed half a million Japanese civilians in response to a surprise attack on a military installation which killed 2,500 sailors. Was this wildly out of proportion? The question doesn’t really make sense. There is no version of WW2 where the USA says “right boys, we gave the Japs a good drubbing at Midway, now we’re even stevens.”
Israel is not looking for ‘even stevens’, they are seeking to disarm an enemy which has declared war on them. Any amount of violence is justifiable to achieve such a goal, as long as reasonable efforts are made to direct that violence away from civilian targets.
Why are blood feuds might-makes-right
Because they never end. Both parties think they are in the right, that their escalation is justified. They only finish when one side dominates the other into abandoning their claim.
blood feuds empirically seem like the best social technology that humanity has discovered.
Be careful what you wish for. Gazan culture (in the broadest possible interpretation of the term) is totally unfit to survive. They cannot exist on their own, and are kept alive only by massive infusions of resources provided by a world which has developed 20th century morality and understands the term ‘humanitarian crisis’. No regional power before the 20th century would ever suffer to have such a dangerous neighbor. Rome, for example, would never have tolerated an aggressive barbarian tribe 100 miles from the capital; They would have been annihilated.
To be clear, if Israel subscribed to your morality, then they would grind Gaza to nothing; Scatter the population to the 4 winds and kill any who resist. We would not be talking about 1% dead as if it were a big number. Such a thing is, historically, the norm.
shakenvac
6mo ago
the present ruling population of Israel mostly moved to that territory in the late '40s, and from the start has continued violently expelling the ancestors of present Palestinians from their homes to acquire their land for themselves.
This is true to a point. It is also true that Israel was once far larger than it is today. The Israelis captured huge swathes of land through force of arms in defensive wars, and has mostly returned that land peaceably. The Israelis left the Gazans to their own devices in 2005. The common narrative that Israel is constantly expanding is ahistorical.
If you are continuously denied justice in an existential matter, though, I don't think it's at all an alien viewpoint that you are morally entitled to do whatever you find appropriate to seize justice for yourself, including ineffectual and vile acts of revenge such as murdering the women and children of those who wronged you.
I see this logic - not that I agree with it, but I see it. What I don't see is how your logic is not fully generalizable to the Israelis. They have also been wronged by Palestinian actions. How can it be in your paradigm that Palestinians have the right to invade Israel and kill every Jew they see, but then the Israelis do not have the right to bring indiscriminate death down upon the Palestinians in retaliation? (for the record, I do not believe either of them have the right to do this, nor do I believe that Israel's response has been indiscriminate.)
If you have been driven out of your house and into a corner at gunpoint by the mafia, the mafia boss's kid stands by watching the show and mocking you, and, seeing an opening, you shoot the kid, I will find it hard to fault you for the murder
While I don't think the analogy is particularly fair, I will point out that there is only one moral paradigm in which the shooter in your story is unambiguously justified, and that is blood feud. That is inherently a might-makes-right morality. The shooter will soon find out the hard way that that the Mafia have no more scruples than he when it comes to killing children.
shakenvac
6mo ago
Fair - there was an 'Israel' button but no single 'not Israel' button - the closest to that was Irish singer Bambie Thug who has been at the centre of some very juicy Israel/Palestine drama, tried to get the Israeli team banned and the producers prevented xirself from wearing a pro-Palestinian slogan during her performance, but I guess that was opaque to most viewers.
Armenia
Now, that was a banger!
shakenvac
6mo ago
I was shocked at how well Israel did in the popular vote. Not only was their song kinda boring and mid but politics is a huge part of the televote (and jury vote?) and I thought what with public support for Palestine, Israel would get a super low score in the televote.
Possible explanations:
- I have terrible taste in music, the song was actually a banger, but the juries hated it for reasons.
- Joe public's support for Palestine / antipathy for Israel is hugely overstated and in fact most people are still very sympathetic toward Israel after October 7. I am extremely online.
- People are not necessarily sympathetic to Israel, but are massively sick of constant pro-Palestine protests, and this was pushback.
- people felt sorry for 20-year-old Eden Golan constantly getting booed by the crowd.
- The BDS movement to boycott Eurovision was weirdly effective which trimmed off the pro-Palestinians, and consequently their votes.
- Mossad did it.
Thoughts, anyone?
shakenvac
6mo ago
State criminal courts don't do constitutional debates. He broke NY law. Whether that law is unconstitutional (probably yes) is outside the remit of that court.
Suspect, fine. 'Suspect' is reasonable. But 'suspect' alone is not sufficient reason to call bullshit. It's reason to dig, to sniff around, to raise an eyebrow, to build a case. But in the end, you still need to evaluate that case on its merits, not on the feeling of suspicion.
I've gathered a lot of downvotes on this subject. People here clearly disagree with me, but nobody has even taken a crack at the most basic question here - how does it benefit the feds to have Assange extradited to Sweden? That's a real obvious question that nobody seems interested in tackling.
shakenvac
7mo ago
So he says. But neither he nor anyone in this thread has offered a coherent explanation for why going to Sweden placed him at risk of being thrown in a US prison cell.
When they fought the extradition attempt to Sweden in the UK courts his lawyers put forward no arguments as to why that might be a risk, they merely hinted.
shakenvac
7mo ago
it could simply be that prosecutors like the attention they get from bringing cases against famous people.
I will agree this is plausible, but on the other hand the Swedish love prosecuting sex crimes. It's what gets them out of bed in the morning. They live for that shit. Swedish prosecutors don't need the accused to be famous to be dragging them over the coals for possible sex crimes - it's just what they do.
Plus, even if your theory is correct, there's no reason to believe that Sweden would have been particularly receptive to an extradition request from the Americans.
It can be reasonable to skip bail in the UAE, thereby committing a purely apolitical crime.
Sure, but the analogy only holds to the extent that you are willing to equivocate between blasphemy laws and sex crime laws.
Plus, if Assange had managed to flee to Ecuador proper then we wouldn't be having this conversation, but all he managed to do was flee to a room in an embassy. At that point it was completely viable for the UK to just wait him out. They didn't need to negotiate. Sure, the UK home sec could probably have made an exception and just dropped all charges and granted Assange asylum... But why the hell would he? Why give a break to a guy who is absolutely determined to become a national embarrassment and inviting those godawful UN rapporteurs to come and accuse the UK of humans rights violations because Assange would rather hole himself up in an embassy for the rest of his life rather than go attend a police interview in god damned Sweden of all places.
shakenvac
7mo ago
Versus your standard that every court action involving a person of interest to the Americans is inherently corrupt? If I can't use plausibility as my basis to judge these things, then what basis can I use?
The theory that the Swedish charges were somehow trumped up by the CIA has one glaring problem: why bother? If the Americans wanted Assange, why bother getting him extradited from the UK to Sweden as an intermediate step? What's the advantage? Why not just request extradition from the UK directly?
If Assange goes along with the extradition to Sweden and then America tries to extradite from Sweden, then he gets to fight extradition in both Swedish and British courts, and he only has to be successful in one of them.
shakenvac
7mo ago
Nothing you have said in your post has surprised me at all, and you have barely engaged with the points I have made. Your attempt to shame me by framing me as uninformed, while vaguely gesturing to the approximately zero factual errors in my post strikes me as an attempt at consensus building. Ironic, considering that you are trying to throw the lofty standards of The Motte in my face while breaking the spirit of its rules. Next time you think that someone may be wrong on The Motte, might I suggest that you spend less effort telling them off and more effort explaining in a specific way why you think they are wrong.
Anyway.
On to your points:
Look all the problems with the sexual assault case against Assange look this makes no sense that’s a bit weird etc etc etc.
Don’t care.
I mean, I don’t get your point. Are you trying to say Assange didn’t commit a crime in Sweden? Because that doesn’t contradict anything I have written. I am totally agnostic on the question of whether Assange committed some sexual crime in Sweden. What I am not agnostic about is that he was expected and required to present himself to the Swedish authorities so that they could conduct an investigation into whether a crime had been committed.
Are you trying to say that the accusations are so shaky that they couldn’t have been anything other than a bad faith attempt by the Swedes to get hold of Assange? Don’t agree there either. There was reason to believe that a crime had been committed, and it was up to the Swedish Police to determine if that was the case. That should pretty obviously involve an interview with the suspect. That the Swedish police wanted to talk to him strikes me as extremely, tediously normal.
And your narrative that this was all just a ruse still makes no sense to me! Why do you think that the Swedish would have been more receptive to a US extradition request than the UK? I’m not even asking for evidence, just some reasoning. And again, if he had been extradited to Sweden by the UK, then both Sweden and the UK would have had to agree to any follow up requests from the USA.
But anyway, this is all totally academic. Regardless of whether he broke the law in Sweden, he certainly broke the law in the UK by violating bail. He gave assurances to the British court that he would appear when summoned and on that basis he was granted bail. He then failed to appear. That’s a crime. For reasons that I have already mentioned, once he was (rightly) convicted under British law he had far fewer legal protections against extradition to the US than if he had just accepted extradition to Sweden in the first place.
He also offered to testify remotely from the embassy.
“What do you mean ‘a zoom call is not an appropriate venue for an interview under caution’? Don’t you know who I am?! I'm Julian Assange god damn it! Your petty ‘procedures’ are meaningless to me!”
I mean, the absolute gall! Can you imagine being pulled over for a warrant in America and telling the cop “I’m afraid being arrested doesn’t really work for me right now, but I’m totally willing to skype this out later.” Sorry Julian, but this isn’t a negotiation, you’re under arrest, get in the police car.
Assange and his lawyers made multiple offers to testify and participate in a trail as long as there were guarantees that he would not be immediately extradited to the US.
The assurances Assange wanted were totally impossible to give, as anyone familiar with, uh, law would understand. The Swedish can’t give someone blanket immunity from extradition. They have treaties. They are required to consider an extradition request from the US. The only assurances they could give Assange would have been the normal ones:
1 - We will not extradite you unless the crime you are accused of would also be a crime here in Sweden.
2 - We will not extradite you unless we are sufficiently certain that you will receive a fair trial.
3 - We will not extradite you unless we are sufficiently certain that you will be treated humanely.
These, of course, would not be enough for Assange. He’s special.
And now, he remains in custody in the UK, because nothing says ‘flight risk’ better than spending seven years holed up in an embassy after you were previously granted bail. Assange is sleeping in a bed fully of his own making.
shakenvac
7mo ago
What your narrative doesn't explain is why the US is considering dropping charges now - assuming that they actually are considering that and it's not just another deception.
I'm not sure your timeline is correct - I thought the US maintained that there were no charges against Assange until he was arrested in the UK. I do agree that the USA absolutely wanted to get it's hands on Assange while lying through it's teeth that it didn't want him. I don't see that as a partisan issue. When the US put in it's extradition request 15 minutes after Assange was booted out of the Ecuadorian embassy the verb used was that the charges were 'unsealed', implying that they had been in place for some time.
But the idea that these Swedish charges were a trumped up excuse just to get him into the hands of the Americans doesn't pass the smell test for me. My impression is that the Swedish are not particularly sympathetic to the goals of the US intelligence or military community, are generally appalled by the state of the US justice/prison system, and are not particularly beholden to the US in a way that would make extradition especially likely. Certainly I think the Swedish were less likely to extradite Assange than the British, who notably have still not extradited him. Additionally, because of the way extradition law works, had he submitted to the European arrest warrant, and the US had then put in an extradition request, then both Sweden and the UK would have had to agree to the extradition to the US. He would have had twice the protection that he currently has. If he was worried that he couldn't trust the Europeans not to sell him out to the Americans, why was he even operating in Europe in the first place? His story just doesn't add up for me.
Finally, and I realise this isn't necessarily relevant to your points, I want to add that I have zero sympathy towards Assange. His game plan seems to have been to hole up in the embassy and then whinge about being a 'political prisoner' and 'held without trial' while doing everything in his power to avoid any trial, even on apolitical charges. 'Victim of psychological torture' - bollocks. He was just straight up a fugitive from justice and his prison sentence for breaching the UK bail act was fair and just. His argument was basically that in order to be safe from the evil machinations of the Americans, he had to be functionally immune to any part of the European justice system, which is obviously absurd. The man is a weasel, and the most surprising thing about this entire episode is that it took him seven whole years to wear out his welcome with the Ecuadorians.
shakenvac
8mo ago
Is it just because it's reinventing concentration/filtration camps
I think this. I mean, it's hardly even a reinvention - what you are describing is literally a concentration camp as used by the Spanish in Cuba, the British in the Boer War, and a dozen other places. Historically, the only nation that was ever able to pull something like that off without mass starvation was America with their Japanese internment camps. I very much doubt Israel could do anywhere near as well.
shakenvac
8mo ago
There are genetic variations among different populations, but this doesn't mean the categories of race are not socially constructed.
What word would you like people to use to describe genetic variations among different populations?
shakenvac
8mo ago
Yeah, absolutely. I feel pretty bad for the professor. She has basically lost her culture, her identity, her career and her raison d'etre all in one fell swoop. There aren't many crimes for which that would be an appropriate punishment. But at the same time, I'm definitely feeling a 'play idpol games, win idpol prizes' vibe. There's something delicious about being a grievance merchant, and then finding out that you were the grievance all along. I'm eating the popcorn, but I feel bad about it.
prestigious Indian Studies professorships should be reserved only for those who have passed an official blood test.
Unironically brilliant idea. Would have stopped this woman wasting a massive chunk of her life on something she was clearly genetically disqualified from. plus blood testing for jobs would be the ultimate mask off moment for the progressive left.
shakenvac
8mo ago
"deterministic history" is not a falsifiable, testable concept
This is a really interesting question. Is determinism falsifiable? that kind of feels like asking if trigonometry is falsifiable. Determinism is more theorem than theory, an exercise in hard logic rather than empirical data gathering. I think almost everyone would agree that the universe moves according to causality; that A leads to B leads to C, in a reliable, repeatable, (one might say deterministic) way. Determinism is merely the philosophy that you can extend that thinking from 'every part of the universe excepting the human brain' to 'every part of the universe'. In a dead universe, we would all be determinists.
I mean, what does the null hypothesis for determinism even look like? That causality is not true? That today we might mix 8 grams of oxygen and 1 gram of hydrogen and receive 9 grams of water, but tomorrow we might receive 15 grams? or that yesterday's water might spontaneously dissociate back into hydrogen and oxygen? Or perhaps into neon and feathers? Empiricism, the entire scientific method, is based on the truth of causality. If causality is false we have to throw pretty much everything out and just accept that we're all living in Plato's cave.
Or perhaps the null hypothesis is that causality is true everywhere... except the human brain. Not much of a null hypothesis, is it? Really feels like, if that's your theory, then determinism ought to be your null hypothesis.
shakenvac
8mo ago
I think it is a redefinition. What you are describing is something most people would call 'freedom of action', or possibly just 'freedom' - the ability of an agent to do what it wants to without external interference. But under this definition, we could say that a Roomba has free will - because it can do what it wants (clean floors), but a prisoner does not, because he is unable to do what he wants (leave prison). This is very much at odds with how most people would use the term.
I agree that agents can make decisions to perform actions to alter the world. What I don't agree is that an agent - any agent - had the capability to make a decision other than the one that it ended up making. This is what most people would mean when they talk about free will - it's the idea that your snitch could have decided not to tattle, which is something that determinism rejects. the choice to snitch appeared unforced, but it was in fact as deterministic as was my Roomba's 'choice' to hoover my floors every day at ten o'clock.
whatever computation our minds do, whether that happens on a material or spiritual level.
I think i know what you're getting at here, but for the avoidance of doubt, determinism denies the possibility of spiritual decision making. The deterministic argument is:
- in the universe, material interacts with material by way of deterministic causality
- the human mind/brain is part of the material universe
- therefore, the human mind/brain operates by deterministic causality.
shakenvac
8mo ago
Any logically coherent non-determinist explanation that meshes with our understanding of the universe, or even with not-yet understood parts of the universe.
I think you could do this with appeal to divinity, as per point 2 - 'god made us and wanted us to have free will so therefore we have free will' is logically difficult to refute - but as I said I think this runs into common sense objections, e.g. if we have souls then how can it be that brain damage can change our personality? Plus, most people I have had this debate with are atheists and so not able to lean on that.
shakenvac
8mo ago
I mean, its oppositional, but I don't think it's unfair. When you follow determinism to it's logical conclusion you come to realize that everything that an animal or human does is a product of their brain structure, their surroundings, their sensory inputs, etc. Essentially, the human brain is a computer, and like all computers (all physical things, really.) it is deterministic. So, you declare "there is no free will! everything is predetermined, even my very thoughts!" And you are correct.
But then, along comes a soft determinist to say "Aha! but if we redefine free will in such a way that it instead represents the preferences of one of these deterministic machines and it's ability to have agency in this universe then free will does exist!" Well okay, yeah, I suppose, but all this really is is sleight of hand. You've twisted the concept of 'free will' until it no longer represents what it did before you learned of determinism. I accept the logic, I don't accept that you've demonstrated anything profound. Under this paradigm, a computer that wants to contact a server, and succeeds, has free will. But we don't think of smartphones as having free will, for obvious reasons.
I voted Labour, begrudgingly, and desperately hope that I will not have to do so again in 2029. My political philosophy is not very well aligned with the Labour party, but Kier Starmer is not Jeremy Corbyn. I am glad that the electorate has rewarded labour for ditching the loony left and putting someone in charge who has achieved more in life than dropping out of a Trade Union Studies course at North London Polytechnic. Your analysis is that this was not Labour’s win, but the Tory’s loss. I don’t entirely agree with that. I, for one, have been sick of the Conservatives since 2017, but I voted tactically to keep Corbyn away from the top job, and my feeling is that many did the same. In FPTP it is not sufficient to have concentrated appeal over a small geographical area – you must appeal broadly and Corbyn didn’t do that. Starmer has very conventional attitudes toward economics, foreign policy, patriotism etc. That was all I needed.
Given that, and how backbiting, ineffectual, and directionless the Tories have been under Sunak, it is hard to make an argument that the country will be worse off under Starmer for 4-5 years.
My primary issue with the Conservatives is that after 14 years in power, they are doing poorly on all the metrics that they as Conservatives should like to be measured on. Low taxes, law and order, an effective miliary, home ownership, robust immigration controls. They have achieved none of these things. Should I vote for a party that claims to want these things, but is unable (or unwilling) to achieve them? Their track record on the economy is poor as well, and from a purely financial point of view, Brexit was the Conservatives delivering a nasty self-inflicted wound. ‘A rising tide lifts all boats’ is a saying that conservatives are fond of. Well, If they can’t raise the tide, maybe we should see if someone else can. God knows I want my boat lifting.
Ultimately, the Conservatives are dead, and they will not resurrect without a substantial change in attitude. They are the party of the geriatrics. The age at which a person is more likely to vote Conservative than Labour is seventy. Seventy! They have pandered greatly - and transparently - to their aged base at the expense of the young. This strategy always had a time limit on it. The generation who remembered Thatcher as a great leader is dying out, and they will need to mint a new one. They need to figure out how they can turn the current generation of young adults from lonely nomads into professional homeowners, with a nuclear family, a well paying job, and something to lose, as these are the people who historically have voted Conservative. They also need to figure out how, after so many broken promises, they can win back the trust of the electorate.
More options
Context Copy link